Geologist Dr. Norman Page left a comment which I’ve decided to upgrade to a post. In it he writes solar and La Nina observations fit well with his recent paper showing that climate is controlled by natural orbital and solar activity cycles.

Dr. Page is among a growing number of scientists who share the general view that natural solar and oceanic cycles are mostly driving the climate, just as they always have in the past.

Warming has already peaked, cooling ahead

And as a result, Dr. Page believes that the millennial temperature cycle peaked at about 2003/4 and the earth is now in a cooling trend, which will last until about 2650. Read background here.

His paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. A number of papers have been published over the recent years pointing out that climate models have been far short of reliable.

In the paper’s abstract Dr. Page writes that the Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and that it is not possible to forecast the future unless there’s a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities.

“Temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries”

He presents evidence specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and the all important 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors), which he and other scientists maintain are so obvious in the temperature record.

Fig. 8, HadSST3 temperature anomaly: “Over the last 135 years an approximate 60 year periodicity is clearly present in the temperature data.”

He projects cyclic trends forward and predicts a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries.

Large divergence by 2021

He also estimates the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling, writing: “If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of his working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by his paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”

Dr. Page notes that there is a varying lag between the solar activity peak and the corresponding peak in the different climate metrics because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. In the abstract he writes:

It has been independently estimated that there is about a 12-year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data – Fig. 3 in Usoskin (28).”

Page says this correlates with the millennial temperature peak seen at 2003/4 in the RSS data in Fig 4,

103 responses to “More Research Points To “Temperature Decline In The Coming Decades And Centuries””

Hi Pierre, interesting. Along the lines of Scafetta. Here’s a rambling thought. Your post got me wondering about so many cycles in nature and physics, and then into sine waves and Fourier maths (lots of sine wave cycles making up other cyclical patterns). And then into underlying maths of cycles and the solution to the simple second order differential equation x = k d2x/dt2. (If k is negative the solution is a sine wave). Where sign of the constant k is either the tendency of the x to accelerate back toward a central point, stability, or to accelerate away to infinity, instability. It seemed to me that the presumed sign of k is a fundamental difference between the two main camps looking at climate change.

It’s not the winters that get ya; It’s the cool summers. When the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles moderates winters become milder and so do the summers. Glaciers advance because of the lack of summer melt.

I’m not so sure where we’re going though. Currently the Croll-Milankovitch cycle relationships are similar to what they were 400,000 years ago during an extended interglacial that lasted about 28,000 years according to Antarctic ice core data from IPICA.

nzrobine 15 – I think you make a great point – the earth has transitioned through many different levels of c02, some many times greater. But yes, the warmist camp maintains that man’s relatively tiny addition of c02 to the atmosphere (soil alone puts out 9X the c02 of all of man’s activities, and almost everything living and many abiotic systems also trump man’s trivial input. So the incredibly oversimplified assumption that the earth is on a razors edge is a bit bizarre – that man’s input has the capability to cause some kind of runaway (as you put it to infinity) effect, where as history tends to clearly show that large and small variations in temp have little to do with c02. All of the forcings that the true believers built into their models have been shown to be simply flawed, many forcings are negative, suggesting a tendency to seek equilibrium in the case c02, and natural cyclical cycles seem to show an almost clockwork connection (orbital mechanics and solar output), especially looking at longer timeframes. More on c02 By NASA’s own data, c02 is not a well mixed gas, and tends to clump around certain latitudes and altitudes – it is heavier than air so it tends not to move upward, but actually sink over time. Also, the idea that the carbon cycle has magically stayed almost the same until industrial times is strongly challenged by professor Tim Ball, and others, noting the obvious cherry picking the very lowest levels of Ice core data, ignoring stomatal and other proxies, and then applying a 70 year smoothing average to c02. After world war two, for example, c02 was thought to be around 425 ppm, and close to 400ppm two other times in the 20th century. The keeling curve was hooked up with ice core samples with an assumption of the same c02 levels for 35 data free years.

What timeframe are we talking about for those 1600 coal power plants? Why do you repeat that mostly imaginary number so often? And what will you do when not even close the number of power plants have been built in the timeframe you are going to announce?

Thanks for the upgrade.Readers might add from the paper under Fig 4 above
“The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.”

Wanna bet on that prediction? This blog has a running bet on this decade being cooler than the previous one and so far this bet is clearly lost. Why do you think that this decade has a cooling trend when it hasn’t?

Off topic
Peter
My climate discussion group has accepted that the Medieval Warm Period was local and I offered to find the interactive record of world wide evidence that was prepared by Prof. Vahrenholt and Luning. Can you please give me a link to it?

Thanks for noting this. There have been lots of papers demonstrating this.
Unsurprisingly all the authors were ridiculed by the climate “science” establishment- after all they were an attack on their gravy train.

The data from 6,000 boreholes shows conclusively that the MWP trend was global. You can find a good discussion of the borehole data on Joanne Nova’s website.

The receding Mendenhall glacier (Alaska) recently exposed a 1,000 year-old shattered forest still in its original position. No trees have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site. Google the Greenland Temperature study (gisp2) which shows that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. So we have indications that Greenland and Alaska were also as warm, likely warmer during the MWP.

There are also hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies. co2science.org has apparently cataloged most MWP studies. Many were completed before Mann introduced his dubious HOckey Stick Graph. A subset of these studies directly address temperature. Choose (say) a half dozen regions distant from Europe, Alaska, and Greenland. Select one temperature study (if any exist) from each of those regions. You will find that site to have been as warm, likely warmer during the MWP than now.

Also, antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have been found at locations where grapes cannot be grown today. As I recall burial sites have also been found below the perma-frost. The antique maps of Greenland had to have been generated when there was less ice extent around Greenland.

Unlike Mann’s claims, wrapped in a model and intertwined with dubious statistical analysis, the references above are all closer to the actual data. Numerous different researchers from different countries were involved.

A) where is your science degree?
B) why debunk the MWP?
C) you guys should be more skeptical when a “scientist” tries to predict the future from continuing past temperature curves as if the industrialisation never happened 🙂

So you both would be matching the stereotype of a climate “skeptic” if you never updated your knowledge from back in the 80s. I am pretty sure there was some development in the decades between, right? I come from the computer sciences and seeing people stuck in 80s, 90s or even 2000s technologies is painful to watch. Keeping up to date is important.

So if in 2020/21 nothing like you coldists are propagating happened … what will you do then? Propagate a new date? Natural variations and the fluctuations of the Sun’s output have been tiny in the last decades compared to the influence of the higher (and caused by man) CO2 concentration.

What needs to happen that you’ll realize that this is real? Another decade of warming?

P.S.: why is this post claiming that there was some kind of peak mid 2000’s when the record years have all been later on? Is this “scientist” using a different temperature record than everybody else?

Sebastian, I consider your comment amusing and hypocritical,since the IPCC temperature projections from 1990 have been a colossal failure.

The low rate of warming is evidently NOT CO2 driven, therefore no need to worry. You need to let go of the failed AGW conjecture, it has been wrong many times now.

There have been a few scientists INDEPENDENTLY saying the expected cooling starts in the years of 2017-2021 time frame, which is understandable since past history back to the Minoan period shows a distinct pattern. Each warming period seems to last around 330 years, then fades to the deep cooling that comes afterwards.

There have been a few scientists INDEPENDENTLY saying the expected cooling starts in the years of 2017-2021 time frame

Which leads back to my original question (which you failed to address, “no counterargument”-guy) … what will you do, if warming continues. Will you then consider that you were wrong and something else is going on? Or will this be like 2008 all over again and you’ll have forgotten your ridiculous claims a few years later, when no predicted cooling actually happened?

Like I pointed out, your strident refusal to accept the IPCC prediction failures is obvious.

“Sebastian, I consider your comment amusing and hypocritical, since the IPCC temperature projections from 1990 have been a colossal failure.
The low rate of warming is evidently NOT CO2 driven, therefore no need to worry.”

You come back with nothing against it.

You have been shown many times from me and Andy, that the warming RATE is LESS than half the predicted rate stated in the 1990 IPCC report, that ALL the warming episodes since 1979 are from El-Nino’s, no warming in between them.

You have NOTHING to counter me and Andy with, which is why you are reduced to dumb empty replies.

There is no visible CO2 warming effect in the Satellite data and you know it since you ignore the evidence presented.

And here we go again, you want me to counter something which needs no counter argument at all. It is your opinion and everyone can have one of those. I gave up trying to convince you on this topic long ago if you haven’t noticed …

In case you need a reminder why your view on predictions is nonsense, please search for other predictions that were made in the past and got updated with better data and better methods in the meantime. You should be able to notice that predictions can generally improve if people are working on doing just that.

Basing your opinion about predictions on old ones is your right and fine with me, but it is my right to call this behaviour stupid 😉

You have NOTHING to counter me and Andy with, which is why you are reduced to dumb empty replies.

I countered this too many times, no need to continue doing it. Living in the past is not a good thing when you are trying to discuss the future, wouldn’t you agree?

But if you want to play this game, please look up what skeptics predicted in 2008 what the temperature anomaly would be in 2020. I’d consider that the recent past where more data was available than in the 90s and yet the predictions don’t even have the same sign.

You get snotty with this, when I used ONLY the IPCC and Satellite data sources:

“And here we go again, you want me to counter something which needs no counter argument at all. It is your opinion and everyone can have one of those. I gave up trying to convince you on this topic long ago if you haven’t noticed … ”

No I gave you the information which you NEVER addressed for what it is.

Here is where you are considered an idiot since I did give you several examples straight from the IPCC’s source,first your dishonest claim:

“In case you need a reminder why your view on predictions is nonsense, please search for other predictions that were made in the past and got updated with better data and better methods in the meantime. You should be able to notice that predictions can generally improve if people are working on doing just that.”

1990 IPCC report shows an average of .30C per decade warming, then in the 2007 report narrows it down to just .30C per decade ONLY. No average or other numbers.

You have been shown this a number of times, thus you are deliberately avoiding what the IPCC projected and what the Satellite showing HALF the predicted/projected rate.

Then you go on with your lie, since it was NOT my opinion, but those of the IPCC and the Satellite data:

“Basing your opinion about predictions on old ones is your right and fine with me, but it is my right to call this behaviour stupid.”

It is YOU who is dishonest with your continuous chameleon replies, trying hard to avoid the evidence straight from official sources. You make it clear you can’t handle the well supported fact that the IPCC has failed the few short term prediction/projections they published starting in 1990.

Another lie since you NEVER acknowledged they are from the IPCC, since you keep arguing with me, when it is the IPCC you are arguing with, since it is THEIR statements you don’t accept.

“I countered this too many times, no need to continue doing it. Living in the past is not a good thing when you are trying to discuss the future, wouldn’t you agree?”

Then you try to create an argument out of the air with me, since I have not been supportive about skeptic predictions at all, but about the IPPC statements, which you habitually avoid.

“But if you want to play this game, please look up what skeptics predicted in 2008 what the temperature anomaly would be in 2020. I’d consider that the recent past where more data was available than in the 90s and yet the predictions don’t even have the same sign.”

You still have NOTHING Sebastian, which is why you are looking dumb here.

You still have NOTHING Sebastian, which is why you are looking dumb here.

That’s cute and all, but the one who is looking dumb here isn’t me. It’s the angry old white (I assume) guys pretending there is no climate change and employing all kinds of shady tactics and conspiracy theories to convince others and themselves that this is reality. It’s super dumb …

SebastianH 16. December 2017 at 7:29
…….”What needs to happen that you’ll realize that this is real? Another decade of warming?”

How about showing when it has ever happened before during the earths history when CO2 levels were much higher than now? When in the past has the climate reached a “tipping point” that resulted in runaway warming due to “cascading climate feedbacks” resulting from atmospheric CO2?

Or how about showing us any of the many claimed catastrophic events that have been predicted to occur due to warming that have actually happened?

Where is the permanent “hot spot” in the upper troposphere over the equatorial regions that was a critical component needed for the “tipping point” to be reached?

Why has the Greenland ice sheet SMB been growing instead of declining as so many predicted it would?

Why is the Arctic Sea Ice Volume this year well above where it was at this time 10 years ago?

Why is the Antarctic ice sheet growing instead of declining as we were told it would?

Why was the Global ACE well below the average this year when we were told to expect more powerful tropical cyclones due to warming?

Why has N. American snow cover been increasing instead of declining? Why are the ski areas in the NE US having an exceptional early season this year? And why are did many ski resorts in the western US open their slopes two weeks earlier than the average this year? Both places were supposed to suffer from low snow accumulations due to “climate change”.

Why did the droughts in Texas and California that were supposed to be permanent end?

Why are many areas of bleached coral in the Great Barrier Reef recovering if it was “ocean acidification” due to increased atmospheric CO2 that caused the bleaching in the first place as was claimed by many “authorities”?

How about showing when it has ever happened before during the earths history when CO2 levels were much higher than now?

When in Earth’s history did a third party increase the CO2 concentration as much as we did and still do and caused an imbalance of the natural carbon cycle?

When in the past has the climate reached a “tipping point” that resulted in runaway warming due to “cascading climate feedbacks” resulting from atmospheric CO2?

Why would it be runaway warming? Apparently, you don’t quite understand what climate science is predicting.

Or how about showing us any of the many claimed catastrophic events that have been predicted to occur due to warming that have actually happened?

What has been claimed to already have happened by now? The temperature increased just as predicted, the ocean heat content increases just as predicted, the CO2 concentration increases just as predicted. You can decide whether or not that is catastrophic or not today. It set us on a path that we can’t easily depart from in the next 100 years. Depending on our actions we will determine the extent of this climate change though … so if you want catastrophic, just continue to exponentially emit more and more CO2 into the atmosphere 😉

Where is the permanent “hot spot” in the upper troposphere over the equatorial regions that was a critical component needed for the “tipping point” to be reached?

Again, what tipping point are you talking about? The hot spot has been confirmed btw … but feel free to ignore that an continue with whatever you are doing here.

Why has the Greenland ice sheet SMB been growing instead of declining as so many predicted it would?

Is it? One year doesn’t make a trend, you know? Also, I am not sure right now what you mean by SMB, the actual value or including the ice melt/runoff. Please confirm by stating the actual mass the Greenland ice sheet has been growing in giga tonnes.

Why is the Arctic Sea Ice Volume this year well above where it was at this time 10 years ago?

Why is the Antarctic ice sheet growing instead of declining as we were told it would?

Are we looking at the same graphs? Arctic and Antartic ice extents are almost record low. In the last 10 years, only 2016 has seen a lower extent.

The rest of your questions continue to show that you have no idea what climate change is affecting and in what way. Seriously, the forcing imbalance is causing an accumulation of energy (heat content) within the Earth system. The amount will be pretty high in another 100 years if we continue to do what we do. What happens when heat content increases is different from region to region. So some regions can even get colder as the rest warms …

Your replies are fun since it is the other way around and you are somehow projecting your own flaws onto others. It’s the master troll showing all other commenters how it is done and that’s what I missed the last months when you weren’t here. Thanks for coming back.

There will be PLENTY of atmospheric CO2 for decades and centuries to come.

1600 new coal fired power stations, 34% emission increase.

And that is until people realise what a scam the anti-CO2 agenda.

Once people realise just how important CO2 is for the continued life on the planet, that 1600 will double at least, because coal and gas are the cheapest, most efficient, most RELIABLE, least environment destroying, form of electricity production that exists..

“When in Earth’s history did a third party increase the CO2 concentration as much as we did and still do and caused an imbalance of the natural carbon cycle?”

What “imbalance” could you possibly be talking about? What has been the consequence of this “imbalance”? What harm? Species extinctions? Catastrophic warming (a whopping 0.1 C in the last 20 years)? What?

“The temperature increased just as predicted, the ocean heat content increases just as predicted”

You do understand that just because someone makes a prediction that turns out to occur, this doesn’t meant that the cause-effect predicated on that prediction has been scientifically verified. Right? If I predict that the Antarctic sea ice will decline rather than continue expanding beginning in the 2030s due to increases in human methane emissions, and then the Antarctic sea ice does indeed begin to decline in the 2030s, that does not mean we have now scientifically verified that methane emission increases caused Antarctic sea ice to decline.

If it rains every time I eat ice cream, therefore eating ice cream causes rain.

This is exactly the same kind of primitive, faux “logic” that your entire case is built upon.

http://icdc.cen.uni-hamburg.de/uploads/pics/hc_fig2.jpeg
Can you explain why it is that ocean temperatures (0-20 m) rose about 4 or 5 times more rapidly from the 1900 to 1945 period as they have during the 1945-2010 period, or why the oceans cooled between 1945 and 1975 just as human emissions were rising? Did these trends follow the predictions you describe?

By the way, what was the mechanism for that abrupt 1900-1945 warming? Last time I asked you this question, you evaded it twice and then finally “answered” by saying “Who cares?”. Can you do any better than that, or is it going to be more of the same sophomoric evasions?

If you have to ask, you are likely ignoring an important part of climate science. But we all know that your perception is very selective.

You do understand that just because someone makes a prediction that turns out to occur, this doesn’t meant that the cause-effect predicated on that prediction has been scientifically verified. Right?

Right! And I am glad you point that out. I hope you are able to notice what papers you regularly quote from are guilty of doing exactly this. Are you?

Matching graph lines, correlating data and then claim it’s this or that? Does it sound familiar?

Can you explain why it is that ocean temperatures (0-20 m) rose about 4 or 5 times more rapidly from the 1900 to 1945 period as they have during the 1945-2010 period, or why the oceans cooled between 1945 and 1975 just as human emissions were rising? Did these trends follow the predictions you describe?

Do you realize that this is all based on calculations/models? And it also contains this little gem: “the fact that two independently derived series should agree so closely, is an indication that there is a common signal”
Weren’t you just arguing against this kind of reasoning?

By the way, what was the mechanism for that abrupt 1900-1945 [surface] warming?

You tell us, please! And has the same mechanism warmed the surface later on? Why do you think that? Isn’t that exactly what you just made fun of? It warmed in the past, it warms in the present, so it must be from the same cause. Right?

With an error range of ±17 W m-2 for the alleged imbalance for the first decade of the 21st century, and with an alleged imbalance caused by humans of just 0.2 W m-2 (Feldman et al., 2015) for the same period (2000-2010), the imbalance that I was asking you about is so riddled with errors and uncertainty as to be indistinguishable from a random guess.

“The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude [10 times] larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

This is precisely why I asked you what this imbalance was that you were referring to with such certainty. Of course, since you have nothing to offer as far as a coherent answer, you decided to dodge it again.

Matching graph lines, correlating data and then claim it’s this or that? Does it sound familiar?

Of course that sounds familiar. That’s what correlation analysis looks like. The difference between you and a real skeptic, though, is that we have no problem with acknowledging that all we have here are correlations and uncertain attributions when it comes to assuming that, for example, natural modulation of solar radiation dominates climate changes, with the human role much less prominent than claimed by the IPCC. Again, these are still merely assumptions based upon accumulated evidence. These are not facts or certainties. It could very well be that these assumptions are wrong.

You, on the other hand, are so certain that humans are the cause of temperature changes, glacier and sea ice melt, sea level rise, species extinctions…that you call people names like “insane” and “denier” if they dare disagree with your beliefs. That’s the difference between a believer (you) and skeptics (us).

By the way, what was the mechanism for that abrupt 1900-1945 [surface] warming?

You tell us, please!

Last time I asked you this question, you dodged it by saying “Who cares?” This time, you’ve dodged it again by resorting to your previous evasion tactic: asking me to identify the mechanism for you.

I asked you the question. Please stop dodging it. What caused the abrupt 1.1 C warming (0-20 m global ocean) during the 1900-1945 period that was 4 to 5 times greater in both rapidity and magnitude as the 1945 to 2010 warming?

Seriously, you asked “what imbalance” despite that being clearly stated in the comment you replied to. That question was aimed do derail the discussion once again and talk about whatever you like to talk about. I am trying to avoid to play that game of yours.

I’ll repeat the statement for you, maybe you can spot what imbalance is ment: “an imbalance of the natural carbon cycle”.

By quoting Stephens, you – again – demonstrate that you don’t know or don’t care what the difference between a derivative and the actual value is. Apparently you think it is not possible to tell how a value changes without being able to tell the exact absolute value. Please learn math and understand what you are quoting …

You, on the other hand, are so certain that humans are the cause of temperature changes, glacier and sea ice melt, sea level rise, species extinctions…that you call people names like “insane” and “denier” if they dare disagree with your beliefs.

Nope, only doing that if the laws of physics or basic math is being violated/missused. When someone correlates an almost linearly increasing variable to another one that happens to do that without an explanation how that could even correlate, then I call BS and you – as a skeptic – should too.

I asked you the question. Please stop dodging it. What caused the abrupt 1.1 C warming (0-20 m global ocean) during the 1900-1945 period that was 4 to 5 times greater in both rapidity and magnitude as the 1945 to 2010 warming?

Oh Kenneth, I asked you so many questions and rarely received a straight answer. I don’t know, maybe it was the Sun? Probably a combination of a lot of things. Tell us your theory! What was the exact mechanism? Be specific! Or don’t you know it either?

Also, this warming in the 20 m layer that comes from a model with very high fluctuations and uncertainty and incomplete data. I don’t understand how you can infer that the warming was 4-5 times greater back then, especially when their 400 m graph containing 20 times the volume doesn’t show anything like what you claim.

Since you believe the current CO2 concentration is “imbalanced”, what do you think the ideal concentration should be? What sort of climate would that ideal CO2 concentration elicit? Would there be more sea ice? Lower crop yields? Less greening? Fewer species extinctions? Would these be ideal too?

Considering sea levels rose at a rate of about 4 to 6 meters per century (40 – 60 mm/yr) while CO2 concentrations were in the 250s ppm early in the Holocene, what is the ideal CO2 concentration for sea level rise rates? Be specific.

A balanced CO2 concentration would be a concentration where the partial pressure of the CO2 in the atmosphere is the same as in the oceans. That’s currently not the case and therefore we have an imbalance. We caused that imbalance.

what is the ideal CO2 concentration for sea level rise rates? Be specific.

I don’t even … what kind of question is that? What is your goal when you ask nonsense like that?

If our current Interglacial is thought of as being Spring/Summer/Fall, we’re almost certainly into the Fall section of it. Long term trend is towards cooling. CO2 isn’t the control knob for temperature on this planet so the modest recovery of CO2 levels certainly won’t stop it.

Do you want me to link to a paper that says the exact opposite? Now who is right and who is wrong? Can you be the judge of that or is it just a gut feeling that you have? A belief if you will? Something which can’t be easily changed by compromising facts that question your perceived reality …

I imagine that SebH uses solar power for all his domestic energy consumption, rides a cycle to work wearing a mask, is a Vegan, only wears cotton clothing, does not vaccinate his kids, only takes cold showers, believes in homeopathy, acupuncture and reiki, and before his current reincarnation, lived as a guru in northern India.

Actually, I imagine seb as a monumental hypocrite, large carbon footprint, makes full use of all modern facilities that come from the use of fossil fuels. Pretends he might one day trade his Mercedes for an EV. Lives in his granny’s basement where the temperature is controlled to an exact value by extravagant use of heating/cooling.

Seb H, the reason I am convinced is because the climate has always changed, it has been hotter in the past prior to Coal being used as fuel,
CO2 is non toxic , and above all, not only are warmers scaremongers, they don’t believe anyone in the 3rd world should have access to cheap energy, and to top it all off Scientists in many diverse fields with credibility on the subject have shown/proven that it is simply not happening.
Enjoy it while it lasts we are heading into a mini ice age if anything.
Its a scam. !!!!!!!!!!
And that does not mean that I think that alternative sources of energy are not a valid pursuit..providing they are not subsidised by Governments… Steve B.App.Sc CCHS 1984

Seb H, the reason I am convinced is because the climate has always changed, it has been hotter in the past prior to Coal being used as fuel,

Indeed it has, every time for very different reasons.

CO2 is non toxic

Why would it be toxic? A car hitting is wall is non toxic too and yet physics determine what happens next.

and above all, not only are warmers scaremongers,

Some sure are, but keeping with the stereotype-theme you started this thread with, (climate) skeptics tend to be angry old guys, often right leaning with a sick love for pretending we are in a perpetual war against whoever is “them” (as in us vs. them) today. I have yet to meet an objectively normal person who thinks global warming is a hoax 😉

they don’t believe anyone in the 3rd world should have access to cheap energy

Not really. Also, solar is pretty cheap already. Skipping coal for solar is comparable to skipping land line phone services for ip based wireless services. Would you require 3rd world countries to build up land lines first before they can switch to mobile phones?

and to top it all off Scientists in many diverse fields with credibility on the subject have shown/proven that it is simply not happening.

It’s interesting that you believe this, but can’t bring yourself to actually look at the data (because it is fake anyways, I assume).

Enjoy it while it lasts we are heading into a mini ice age if anything.

I’ll repeat my question then: what will you do, when it doesn’t happen? If you are still alive in the 2030s and it still didn’t get colder, will you then proclaim that the ice age will come in the next decade … this time for sure? We’ve had these ice age proclamations back in 2008 too. Skeptics looked outside as it was a little bit colder that year and thought it would be a good time to call in a coming ice age 😉

And that does not mean that I think that alternative sources of energy are not a valid pursuit..providing they are not subsidised by Governments

They won’t be subsidized forever though. I can only speak for Germany, but here utility scale solar/wind is already very close to needing no subsidies anymore. And Germany isn’t exactly known for it’s sunny weather.

Subsidies are a good tool to accelerate technological developments, especially in the beginning. Spending billions now speeds up the development by many times of what spending billions in 10 years would achieve, e.g. when guys like you realize that no mini ice age happened, the warming just continued as it did before and you came to your senses and finally want to change something.

Physics determines that NOTHING will happen temperature-wise from the continued beneficial rise in atmospheric CO2.
(if you have empirical proof otherwise, produce it, or stop your childish LIES and attention-seeking)

Biology determines that plants will really like having the extra CO2 for growth.

Will you still have your Mercedes in 2030, seb?

Will you still be wasting your time trying to avoid producing proof of the joke that is CO2 based global warming?

Seb H
What is the point of all your opinions on this subject? They do not make much sense to me.
BTW Penrith a city west of Sydney recorded yesterday its hottest ever temp. for December and so what is my answer because records have been kept for >100yrs. Practically nothing was there then but now its a major city…like with concrete and roads and buildings, you know, stuff that humans build for safety and comfort. My Q is this…is the thermometer in exactly the same place and or environment as 100 yrs ago? I would suggest NOT. Be that as it may, 100 years ago the temp was? you guessed it.. pretty much the same.

Because it clashes with your perceived reality and acceptance of those results would force you to change your views. But please go on and try to attack me personally by trolling. Any sane person reading this should recognize what you are doing 😉

Not only that, but Stephens et al. (2012) determined that the total energy imbalance at TOA was 0.6 W m-2 for 2000-2010, which means that 0.4 W m-2 of the 0.6 W m-2 forcing for 2000-2010 was not from CO2, but from other unexplained or natural forcings.

Stephens et al., 2012http://planck.aos.wisc.edu/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf“The current revised depiction of the global annual mean energy balance for the decade 2000–2010 is provided … For the decade considered [2000-2010], the average imbalance is 0.6 Wm–2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005.”

Of course, these inconsistencies (no warming, 0.4 W m-2 of non-CO2 forcing between 2000-2010) have been pointed out to SebastianH probably a dozen times within the last year, but each time he just ignores them and keeps on citing Feldman et al. (2015) as the quintessential counter point anyway.

Because it clashes with your perceived reality and acceptance of those results would force you to change your views.

What is the “reality” that is not perceived, but wholly true about the Feldman et al. (2015) paper, SebastianH? Do you even realize that every time you cite Feldman et al. (2015), it’s like citing Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth as a reference? We know this is all you have, of course.

Any sane person reading this should recognize what you are doing

Perhaps calling people insane who don’t agree with your version of “reality” is working for you? Is that why you employ this tactic time and time again?

Interesting that you chose the one dataset that doesn’t show an increase. I wonder what your motivation was …

Of course, these inconsistencies (no warming, 0.4 W m-2 of non-CO2 forcing between 2000-2010) have been pointed out to SebastianH probably a dozen times within the last year, but each time he just ignores them and keeps on citing Feldman et al. (2015) as the quintessential counter point anyway.

It’s is you who is ignoring things here. There has been warming and those 0.4 W/m² are largely from feedbacks (as you should be well aware since you regularly cry about the 1°C change the IPCC is predicting for CO2 alone to cause and should know about the larger range including feedbacks).

Also, the difference between derivatives and the actual values. Still ignoring them, are we?

Do you even realize that every time you cite Feldman et al. (2015), it’s like citing Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth as a reference?

Again, you think there is nothing to this paper because you don’t want to hear anything about this. And that’s ok … fits the “skeptic” stereotype. You make up some nonsense arguments against what Feldman states and of you go, nothing to worry about anymore.

Perhaps calling people insane who don’t agree with your version of “reality” is working for you?

What are you talking about? This is not about agreeing to anything. This is about making up things and living in your own “reality” where gravity causes the surface temperature, etc …

AndyG55,

Please explain haw CO2 was responsible for the drop from 2000 – 2008, then the sharp rise to 2010, then the sharp drop to 2012.

It wasn’t. Why would it be? The forcing from CO2 is on top of everything else happening. Even if the temperature anomaly would drop to -3°C until 2020, the CO2 forcing would still be causing that it’s -3°C and not even more.

It’s is you who is ignoring things here. There has been warming and those 0.4 W/m² are largely from feedbacks

It’s like clockwork! Of course, when data show there was no warming, you say there was a warming anyway. When professional guessers say that the radiative imbalance for 2000-2010 was 0.6 W m-2 +/-17 W m-2 (an error range more than 10 times larger than the alleged forcing from CO2 itself), you claim the forcing difference (0.4 W m-2) was not actually a forcing, but a feedback from human forcing. Just make it up as you go along. And then you wonder why you’re not taken seriously here.

Again, you think there is nothing to this paper because you don’t want to hear anything about this.

SebastianH, the Feldman paper is a model, rooted in assumption. It doesn’t even use ocean heat content as a parameter. Even if it did, we know that there is no observational evidence that physically demonstrates how much CO2 concentration changes heat or cool water bodies. Those are modeled assumptions too.

I see you avoided answering the mechanism question again. Why so scared to identify the mechanism, SebastianH? Do you not realize how weak your position looks that you keep on dodging fundamental questions?

“Who’s desperate to find the missing hot-spot? Sherwood’s new paper claims to have found it, but after years of multi-layered adjustments, and now kriging the gaps, and iteratively homogenizing, the results of the new data partly “solve” one problem while creating others. There’s no documented, physical reason for the homogenizing and there’s no new insight gained. The raw data was used by airlines, the military, and meteorologists for years, yet the suggested new results are quite different to the raw data. It’s as if we can’t even measure air temperature properly. Somehow we’ve made multivariate complex models work but not simple temperature sensors? The main problem with the old results was that they didn’t fit the models. Now, after torturing the data, they still don’t. ”

and,

“Instead Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant of UNSW revisited their 2008 technique of homogenizing temperature data by using wind data as well. They homogenised it again. They have iterated the iteration? They’ve also extended it from 2005 to 2013 and changed the “wind shear” component to “vector wind”. Their new homogenized-temp-wind data is below (left). The model predictions of 2005 are centre, and the radiosonde temperature results (before homogenisation etc) are on the right.”

No since Sherwood didn’t use the correct data, he games it with a bunch of unsupported assertions that contradicts the Satellite and Weather Balloon data.

Here from a comment by a scientist Bill Illis, who destroys Sherwood’s junk paper with long accepted official data:

“Bill Illis May 15, 2015 at 5:14 am Edit
Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.
The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.
Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.”

Bill Illis May 15, 2015 at 5:14 am Edit
Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.
The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.
Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.

I brought up Millers comment to show that Sherwood misuses the “Kidging” process as shown here:

“Here is what Peter Miller stated over at Jo Nova:

“Peter Miller
May 16, 2015 at 5:34 pm · Reply · Edit
Jo
I did my dissertation for my Master’s degree under Professor Krige, who at the time was a consultant for the Anglovaal mining company in South Africa.

He was a truly brilliant individual, so one day I asked him about his system of statistical analysis, which is now known as kriging. My reason was that I had just calculated the same gold reserve figure for a new mine called Deelkraal, but I knew instinctively (as I had worked on a nearby mine) that the numbers were too high.

He responded by saying it only works if you are using statistics from the same population group and if you adjust your result by a known constant.

I knew the Deelkraal drill results divided into two population groups and redid the calculation, which resulted in a much reduced grade and tonnage, which is exactly what happened when the mine was in commercial production.

As for the constant needed for adjustment, this was a figure that had been calculated for this particular orebody in adjacent mines. I cannot remember if this constant was a negative or positive figure, but I suspect it was negative.

So to return to Sherwood’s tosh. You cannot use kriging for results which are a mixture of population groups, such as over the land, over the oceans, or over the poles. I very much fear different elevations/atmospheric pressures should also not be combined.

Also, because the sun is the principal driver of our planet’s temperature, I suspect you should be dividing the kriging analysis into bands of latitude.

And you very definitely should not exclude correctly gathered data just because they contain inconvenient numbers.
As for the correcting constant, I guess you have to go to Planet Zarg, wherever that might be, to get it.

“Fifth, Steve Sherwood is a well known climate alarmist, and his confirmation bias seems quite strong to me. For example, see this WUWT post where we state “Professor Sherwood is inverting the scientific method”.

Sixth, by their own admission, they had to throw out data, and to do a series of adjustments to station data to find the signal they were looking for. That sounds more like a selecting process in the scope of confirmation bias than science. (added) The real question is, how many stations did they keep as they define as “good”?”

Read and weep Sebastian, Sherwood’s paper was smashed over two years ago:

“Crispin in Waterloo May 14, 2015 at 5:05 pm Edit
HOMOGENIZATION or HOMOGENISATION (if you speak Brit like some Canuks)

“However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen.”
How can one clearly see through murk? That is the question.

Here is what went down for AR5 on the question of the Hot Spot.

First: The theory is that the ‘greenhouse’ which is a semi-sort-of glass-reflective effect of CO2, intercepts the IR as it leaves the earth and ‘gets hotter’ at 8-16 km above the ground. As everyone knows, there is no tropospheric hot spot – millions of measurements have been made looking for it. It is not there. It is not actually spotted in the sky as a ‘hot…spot’, it is detected as a change in temperature relative to its old temperature at that altitude. It is not hot at all – it is quite cold, but the idea is: it is heating three times as rapidly as the surface. That is the direct prediction of the physical model that says GHG’s ‘do that’ in the atmosphere.

Second: Because between AR4 and AR5 there was a serious effort made to find the Hot Spot in all its multi-coloured, banded glory, there was a lot of (loser-bait) data sitting on some servers before the relevant chapter of AR5 was written. So, what to do? They obviously could not show the data to anyone because it would confirm that Christopher Monckton was correct all along – the hot spot doesn’t exist. In fact Monckton’s oldest paper shows there is even a slight cooling in the very spot that should be warming the most.

The warming in the hot spot is not happening at the same rate as at the surface. The CO2 physical model has the Hot Spot warming at three times the rate of the ground. So the story is somewhat complicated by the fact that the ground isn’t warming at all any more, meaning the rate of increase at 12 km is also going to be zero (three times the ground warming rate). But why let a little math get in the way of a good story! From 1997 to date the warming rate at 12 km altitude matches expectations: 0 x 3 = 0. So far so good.

There is no easy way out of this conundrum for the IPCC. If the surface is not warming, there is no expectation that the Hot Spot will appear, as it is a CO2 feedback/back radiation effect. If it was hotter up there, it would be hotter on the ground. What is most amazing about the paper above is that ‘they found warming’ in a place where none is expected, at least until the surface starts warming again. Chew on that for a while.
Third: Source of what comes next: An Author of AR5, who warned me to look for this: As he/she reads this blog perhaps they would like to chip in anonymously to correct anything I am not putting down correctly.

Because the data from balloon measurements is so precise and the coverage so good and the result so disappointing, they ‘homogenised’ the data. As is correctly described in another comment below, the data from the nearby altitudes is considered, data from sources other than balloon-borne instruments, anything and everything. What the process of homogenisation was, I don’t know, only that the ‘solution’ to the problem of there being no Hot Spot involved homogenising the data until it was badly corrupted; very murky.
Next, the corrupted, mangled, homogenised data was examined by a third party who did not know what this lot of junk and mess and smearing was. The quality of the data set was so degraded by the homogenisation, that if there was a signal in there, it was buried in the murk and could not be teased out again (assuming it was there). Too much noise to signal.
The third party them wrote a report (which is cited in AR5) saying that the data is of such poor quality that the hot spot could not be reliable found, but they still had high confidence it is there.

No kidding, that is what they did. They messed up good data until there was no chance of being able to see whether or not there was a hot spot in it, and declared the lousy data to be just that (which by then it was). They next expressed confidence that the hot spot was probably there somewhere. This idea and process was created and monitored by the authors of AR5. I don’t think AR5 contains manipulated junk science, I know it does.
So if that’s how did they do it for AR5, how did they do it for the paper above? Homogenised iteratively? Again and again, and again? And maybe again? At what point and according to which sign did they know they have performed enough homogenisation interations? Has anyone validated their method?
How do I know this paper’s conclusion is false?

Because they have created a hot spot that is hot relative to the area around it, and we know it is not there from literally millions of direct measurements. There has been certain warming, no doubt, on the surface since the start of the subject period. The hot spot would be three times as detectable if the physical model is correct. Three times faster warming is about 9 times easier to detect so no excuses, please. Yet no one managed to detect it with the same technology that is available to measure the evident surface increase (until about 18 years ago when the increase all but stopped).

Their claims are pretty easy to check: take the data up to 1997 and demonstrate that the hot spot is detectable. Then use only the data from 1997 to 2013. There should be no detectable hot spot from 1997 to 2013 because there has been no net surface warming. If the analysis shows a hot spot between Jan 1997 and Dec 2013, they are making it up, literally, because if the physical model is right, there should be none. And there should be none because we know there has been no net change in the surface temperature. If there exists a hot spot up there which created no change on the surface, then a CO2 increase is nothing to be alarmed about. Which is it: Not there or no surface effect?
Remember, something manufactured out of nothing is magic. Magic involves hocus pocus.”

Archives

The Neglected Sun

Red Hot Lies

Meta

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy